North West Leicestershire District Council (202430627)

Background

1. The resident’s complaint concerns the warden alarm pull cord system in his property. He said a pull cord system was installed when he moved in. He said the system did not work properly, was old and was placed where he could not use it. The landlord removed the system but required him to sign a form which stated he would continue to pay for it. The resident confirmed he has continued to make these payments. The landlord introduced a new support system in January 2020. The resident has said he cannot use the new system, as it only works through a phone line or home broadband. He is unhappy that he must still pay for the system, equipment and maintenance. He considers the new system to be a new service, that required a new contract. He remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the warden alarm system, including his request for reimbursement of associated costs.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the warden alarm system.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

4. The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the warden alarm system

What we have investigated

5. We note that the landlord introduced the new warden alarm system in January 2020 and the resident raised his formal complaint on 20 March 2024. We therefore considered when the resident would have been aware of the charges he was paying towards the alarm support system. During our investigation, the landlord said that it could not confirm or demonstrate when it provided a service charge breakdown before the complaint. It said residents can request a breakdown at any time and that the resident’s quarterly rent statements do not show the breakdown of the service charge. We have seen evidence that the resident requested a service charge breakdown on 26 January 2024. The breakdown included weekly charges for maintenance of the control centre link equipment, and the control centre charge itself.
6. It therefore appears that the resident became aware of the specific charges for the warden alarm system following receipt of this breakdown. This prompted his formal complaint on 20 March 2024, as he was unhappy that he was paying for the costs but did not have any of the equipment. He said there was nothing in the tenancy agreement about this and he had not signed any documents agreeing to them.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 27 March 2024. It said that the resident had moved to the property via mutual exchange and the tenancy started on 5 August 2019. The landlord said the resident signed a deed of assignment as he moved to the property via mutual exchange. It explained this included a clause requiring the resident to take on the previous tenant’s costs and responsibilities. The landlord said its support officer visited the resident on 27 January 2020. The resident advised he no longer wanted to receive the support officer services. At the time, the landlord was moving away from the hard-wired system to provide an independent lifeline unit. It said the resident declined this.
8. As the resident declined the services, the landlord asked him to sign two disclaimer forms. One form recorded that he did not want the support system, and the other recorded that he did not want the equipment. The disclaimers stated that the resident understood the property remained supported accommodation and he would continue to be liable for the alarm service charge.
9. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said the landlord removed the previous pull cord system when it moved away from the old system. He said the new system works through the occupier’s internet service using a connected unit. He said he does not have this equipment and has not agreed to use this service. He said the system is a new service with different equipment and therefore requires a new contract.
10. The landlord responded promptly on 2 April 2024. It explained the resident had signed a form on 27 January 2020 about the new equipment replacing the hard-wired system. It said the resident declined installation of the new equipment and signed a disclaimer, which confirmed he would remain liable for the charge. The resident responded the following day and said the disclaimer was for the previous pull cord system, not the new system and equipment. He said this required a new contract to be signed. He said the landlord could not charge him for equipment he does not have.
11. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 19 April 2024. It said it identified failures in the hard-wired equipment in 2019. It said it decided to replace the system with individual units, which operate through a telephone line or internet connection, depending on the facilities in each property. It further explained that the resident signed a form on 27 January 2020 which confirmed that he did not want the equipment and understood charges would still apply.
12. During our investigation, the landlord has explained that the resident was not required to sign a new tenancy agreement when the support service was upgraded. It said this was because there was no change to the tenancy. The 24-hour alarm service remained the same, and only the alarm hardware was upgraded. It has also confirmed that residents are not required to have a phone line or broadband. It explained that where a resident does not have these, the alarm system connected to a cellular network using an internal SIM card.
13. Overall, we are satisfied the landlord made the resident aware that he would need to pay for the charges associated with the supported services. The disclaimer forms confirmed he would remain liable for the charges. As the resident has continued to pay these service charges, he would be able to access the supported services if he chooses to do so. The system changes involved an alarm hardware upgrade, not a new service or charge. We therefore do not consider it unreasonable that the landlord did not issue a new contract.
14. We are satisfied the landlord provided reasonable explanations to the resident’s queries. We appreciate the resident is required to pay the charge, as he has done since he moved into the property. The resident would benefit from the charges if had the equipment installed and he declined to have the new equipment installed. He was also aware he would still need to pay the charges. We have therefore found no maladministration by the landlord.